On Sunday, May 18, 2014 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Richard Ruquist > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 18 May 2014, at 05:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> Hibbs, >>> I do not often share your opinion, but in this instance I do. It seems >>> to me that Bruno's principal argument for comp is that it predicts MWI. >>> >>> >>> >>> The argument says that comp (believed by 99,9% of scientists today) >>> entails the MWI. OK. >>> >> >> Not OK and not true. >> > > So the majority of scientists don't believe in concept of function or > mechanism (that comp aims to make precise and study the consequences of, > given its step 0 assumptions)? > Isn't this a case of constructively building an association? I don't know if 99% of scientists concur with computationalism or not, but that would be a different question than whether scientists believe in the concept of function and mechanism. In the same way that "do insurers support speculative litigation" would be a different question than "so insurers don't believe in rule of law?" There's a lot of spectrum and a lot of scope for slide rules up and down it. I'd certainly be interested to know data on this if you have any, or should come into possession later ion,
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
